Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.06.23 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES T ORM F EQUEST R RAVEL CC/ OUNTY OMMISSION C CM ITY OUNCIL INUTES June 23, 2005 City Council 12:00 P.M. STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss County of Madison ) Present were the following: Mayor: Mayor Shawn Larsen Council Members: Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Irma Anderson Madison County Commissioners: Commissioner Roger Muir Commissioner Brooke Passey Commissioner Ralph Robison County Attorney Penny Stanford Financial Officer Richard Horner P&Z Administrator: Kurt Hibbert City Clerk: Blair D. Kay PFC: John Millar City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger Pledge to the Flag Roll Call of Council Members: All Council Members were present except Council Member Pugmire. The three County Commissioners and the County Attorney were present at the meeting. New Business: A.Impact Area discussion: Mayor Larsen welcomed the County Officials to the meeting and he asked County Attorney Stanford to review the possible options that are open to the governing boards for settling the duplicate requests from Sugar City and the City of Rexburg. Both Cities have requested some of the same lands which are adjacent to the Rexburg north interchange to be included in their respective Impact Areas. County Attorney Stanford explained that she would be offering some information relevant to the situation based on State Code. She provided the group a copy of State Code 67-6526 which provides negotiation procedures for resolving duplicate requests for city impact areas. TITLE 67 STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS CHAPTER 65 LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING 67-6526. AREAS OF CITY IMPACT -- NEGOTIATION PROCEDURE. 1 (a) The governing board of each county and each city therein shall adopt by ordinance following the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code, a map identifying an area of city impact within the unincorporated area of the county. A separate ordinance providing for application of plans and ordinances for the area of city impact shall be adopted. Subject to the provisions of section 50-222, Idaho Code, an area of city impact must be established before a city may annex adjacent territory. This separate ordinance shall provide for one (1) of the following: (1) Application of the city plan and ordinances adopted under this chapter to the area of city impact; or (2)Application of the county plan and ordinances adopted under this chapter to the area of city impact; or (3)Application of any mutually agreed upon plan and ordinances adopted under this chapter to the area of city impact. Areas of city impact, together with plan and ordinance requirements, may cross county boundaries by agreement of the city and county concerned if the city is within three (3) miles of the adjoining county. (b) If the requirements of section 67-6526(a), Idaho Code, have not been met, either the city or the county may demand compliance with this section by providing written notice to the other of said demand for compliance. Once a demand has been made, the city shall select its representative as hereinafter provided, within thirty (30) days of said demand, and the process set forth in this subsection shall commence. The county commissioners for the county concerned, together with three (3) elected city officials designated by the mayor of the city and confirmed by the council, shall, within thirty (30) days after the city officials have been confirmed by the council, select three (3) city or county residents. These nine (9) persons shall, by majority vote, recommend to the city and county governing boards an area of city impact together with plan and ordinance requirements. The recommendations shall be submitted to the governing boards within one hundred eighty (180) days after the selection of the three (3) members at large and shall be acted upon by the governing boards within sixty (60) days of receipt. If the city or county fails to enact ordinances providing for an area of city impact, plan, and ordinance requirements, either the city or county may seek a declaratory judgment from the district court identifying the area of city impact, and plan and ordinance requirements. In defining an area of city impact, the following factors shall be considered: (1) trade area; (2) geographic factors; and (3) areas that can reasonably be expected to be annexed to the city in the future. (c) If areas of city impact overlap, the cities involved shall negotiate boundary adjustments to be recommended to the respective city councils. If the cities cannot reach agreement, the board of county commissioners shall, upon a request from either city, within thirty (30) days, recommend adjustments to the areas of city impact which shall be adopted by ordinance by the cities following the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code. If any city objects to the recommendation of the board of county commissioners, the county shall conduct an election, subject to the provisions of section 34-106, Idaho Code, and establish polling places for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors residing in the overlapping impact area, the question of which area of city impact the electors wish to reside. The results of the election shall be conclusive and binding, and no further proceedings shall be entertained by the board of county commissioners, and the decision shall not be appealable by either city involved. The clerk of the board of county commissioners shall by abstract of the results of the election, certify that fact, record the same and transmit copies of the original abstract of the result of the election to the clerk of the involved cities. (d) Areas of city impact, plan, and ordinance requirements shall remain fixed until both governing boards agree to renegotiate. In the event the city and county cannot agree, the judicial review process of subsection (b) of this section shall apply. Renegotiations shall begin within thirty (30) days after written request by the city or county and shall follow the procedures for original negotiation provided in this section. (e) Prior to negotiation or renegotiation of areas of city impact, plan, and ordinance requirements, the governing boards shall submit the questions to the planning, zoning, or planning and zoning commission for recommendation. Each commission shall have a reasonable time fixed by the governing board to make its recommendations to the governing board. The governing boards shall undertake a review at least every ten 2 (10) years of the city impact plan and ordinance requirements to determine whether renegotiations are in the best interests of the citizenry. (f) This section shall not preclude growth and development in areas of any county within the state of Idaho which are not within the areas of city impact provided for herein. (g) If the area of impact has been delimited pursuant to the provisions of subsection (a)(1) of this section, persons living within the delimited area of impact shall be entitled to representation on the planning, zoning, or the planning and zoning commission of the city of impact. Such representation shall as nearly as possible reflect the proportion of population living within the city as opposed to the population living within the areas of impact for that city. To achieve such proportional representation, membership of the planning, zoning or planning and zoning commission, may exceed twelve (12) persons, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of section 67-6504, Idaho Code. In instances where a city has combined either or both of its planning and zoning functions with the county, representation on the resulting joint planning, zoning or planning and zoning commission shall as nearly as possible reflect the proportion of population living within the impacted city, the area of city impact outside the city, and the remaining unincorporated area of the county. Membership on such a joint planning, zoning or planning and zoning commission may exceed twelve (12) persons, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of section 67-6504, Idaho Code. Discussion: County Attorney Stanford addressed some concerns about seeking resolution to requests from two cities to include the same land in their separate impact areas. She indicated that once an area of impact has been set; both governing bodies (City and County) must decide the outcome (request for change) of said impact zone. At the present time, the impact areas for Rexburg and Sugar City do not overlap. Impact area boundary issues between two Cities can be settled by a Committee of nine (9) as describe above. The decision of the Committee of nine (9) does not require the public hearing process; however, both the City and the County would need to adopt ordinances demonstrating the decision of the Committee of nine (9). If the separate city councils or the Committee of nine (9) can not resolve the issue, then the mater would be referred to the District Court for a District Judge to make the decision. City Attorney Zollinger reviewed the proposed Impact Area of expansion. Commissioner Muir indicated that the Sugar City Impact Area was proposed to extend to the Salem area. Kurt Hibbert reviewed the proposed area of impact for Rexburg. He mentioned that there were property owners that were seeking developments in the area where Rexburg is seeking inclusion into the Rexburg Impact Area. Council Member Young asked if Sugar City had infrastructure for the proposed area of impact in their proposed expansion area. City Attorney Zollinger reviewed the issue of pumping the sewer to Sugar City for some of the proposed Impact Area around the North Interchange before it would be sent back to the Rexburg sewer plant. Some of the land would have a gravity feed to Rexburg, without pumping it back upstream to the Sugar City sewer system. Commissioner Muir mentioned that a developer will pay Rexburg for sewer expansion on the Rexburg sewer system for new development. Rexburg does have the option of accepting additional waste as development expands. Considering the logistics of the area is the right way to do it. 3 City Attorney Zollinger indicated that both Cities can serve the area; however, it is a matter of cost to the developer. He mentioned that Rexburg could serve the City of St. Anthony, but the cost would be astronomical. The more practical way to serve the area north of Commissioner Muir’s house would be the City of Rexburg. Sugar City can not go that far west without building a lot of sewer lift stations. Council Member Anderson asked if that would discourage a developer for developing the property. City Attorney Zollinger recommended that the two Cities sit down and decide which municipality (Sugar City or Rexburg) would be able to best serve the area that is currently under discussion to be included in their area of impact. He recommended the negotiation process as enumerated in the State Statute (67-6526) for this situation. County Attorney Stanford has found success with this process in Fremont County. Council Member Anderson asked if the impact area boundary could be changed in the negotiation process. The City and the County must agree to the change. City Attorney Zollinger mentioned that the change in the boundary could not go beyond what the City and the County had originally set. The Committee of nine (9) could not reach out and grab the Community of Salem as an example to be included in this current request. Everything that has been through the public hearing process can be reallocated by the Committee of nine (9), as City Attorney Zollinger understands it. Commissioner Robison indicated that Sugar City had included the Community of Salem in their proposed area of impact. Council Member Young inquired on the need to act on this issue in a timely manner. Is a developer seeking this change? Discussion: Concerning access to the lands in question from Rexburg or Sugar City. There are natural barriers to include Hwy 20 and a canal. City Attorney Zollinger mentioned that there are some requestors in this area that would prefer to apply for development under the City of Rexburg verses the City of Sugar City. Commissioner Muir reiterated his comments from a discussion two years ago concerning some County area that should be considered for the Rexburg Impact Area on the east edge of the current impact area for Rexburg. The current east line for the Rexburg Impact Area does not go down any County road. He mentioned that the Russell Subdivision and other properties in the area should be in someone’s impact area. Commissioner Passey indicated that there was a recommendation from the Commission in the earlier hearing to extend the Rexburg Impact Area to 2000 East in this area north of the Sugar City Cemetery. It was cut back at that time because there was not any major development planned going to the east. Commissioner Muir indicated that there was another area of discussion on the west side of the Rexburg Impact Area. There was a proposal to extend that area to 2,500 West in the previous impact zone review. City Attorney Zollinger reviewed the possible boundary for the impact area south of the Moody Road. The future Southeast Arterial was reviewed in the discussion. Mayor Larsen asked the group for ideas on the North Interchange. Commissioner Robison recommended waiting for a resolution to the court case on the Burns legal 4 review. County Attorney Stafford explained the process for that case and she indicated that an appeal decision could take up to two years. Mayor Larsen asked Chairman Dyer if the Planning and Zoning Commission would consider pulling back the City’s impact area request on the north interchange to only include properties on the south side of the interchange. Kurt Hibbert mentioned that it would be a good idea to maintain the same codes for all four quadrants of the north interchange and maintain the same design standards for all four quadrants which would allow for consistent construction in the area. County Attorney Stafford recommended that the City of Rexburg and the City of Sugar City make an agreement to maintain the same development goals for the area. Commissioner Robison indicated that the planners for Sugar City were concerned with the expansion of Rexburg; therefore, they have taken the initiative to request an expansion of their impact area. It seems like they are very willing to sit down and negotiate with the City of Rexburg. The group discussed a request to develop a regional commercial area for the south portion of the north interchange. City Attorney Zollinger recommended that the parties (Sugar City and Rexburg) sit down and discuss the logistics of serving the area from their respective utility systems. It would be helpful in the negotiation process. These discussions need to be held openly and publicly instead of behind closed doors with developers. Chairman Dyer indicated that there is a build-out study available for the two cities to use in their planning review of the area. The group discussed having a meeting with the three units of government. The County st will conduct a meeting on the 21 of July to review the issues for the requested impact area expansions for Rexburg and Sugar City. Commissioner Muir explained that Bruce Ard, the Mayor of Ammon spoke to the Sugar City planners a month ago to discuss his experience with the growth of Ammon and Idaho Falls. How does a smaller city get along with a larger city? Commissioner Muir indicated that each city needs the opportunity to grow. He indicated that the Community of Salem had requested to be in the impact area for Sugar City. City Attorney Zollinger discussed the need to get the property owners input to see which city impact area they would prefer for their property. Mayor Larsen discussed the previous discussions where they discussed having the north interchange in an impact area for planned growth. The main issue was to get the area in an impact area; either Rexburg’s or Sugar City’s impact area. He mentioned that the two cities need to work out an agreement on how to develop the north interchange so that it would be done uniformly. Chairman Dyer indicated that it would be a good compromise to US Hwy 20 as a divider between the respective impact areas. Sugar City is beginning to look at building design standards too. Mayor Larsen indicated that this compromise may help move the development of the property on the south side of the interchange forward for development. 5 City Attorney Zollinger commented on a requestor for development on the north side of the north interchange. This person had requested to be in the Rexburg Impact area. This area would have to be annexable which is not possible at this time because it is not contiguous property to the City of Rexburg. Mayor Larsen discussed having a smaller impact area request for Rexburg. City Attorney Zollinger mentioned that the only reason the current proposal was on the table for the north side of Hwy 20 was because there was not a clear indication from Sugar City on their direction for design standards. A dialog between the two Planning and Zoning Commissions to help them feel comfortable with each others plans for the north interchange. He recommended proceeding with the County’s suggestion to create a Committee of nine (9) to review the proposals and find a resolution to the overlapping impact areas. Both Mayor Larsen and Council Member Benfield indicated a need to sit down with the Sugar City Officials to find a resolution to the impact areas for the two cities. Council Member Benfield recommended meeting with the Sugar City Officials to find a resolution before turning the issue over to the County. Council Member Erickson asked the Mayor to meet as a Council with Chairman Dyer before they meet with Sugar City Officials. Mayor Larsen recommended pulling back the request for an impact area north of Hwy 20. Chairman Dyer concurred with Council Member Benfield and then he mentioned that Sugar City planners have strong feelings that go beyond what has been discussed here today. They are concerned with their future economic development of their Community. He recommended getting the totality of the discussion on the table for both parties to discuss. Council Member Fullmer reviewed the reasoning for pursuing an impact area designation for this area. It was to put some controls on the development of the north interchange area. He recalled the discussion concerning getting the area into an impact area to apply some control for development as opposed to making a land grab. “Let us make sure and get it into an area of impact, whether it was Rexburg’s or Sugar City’s area of impact” was the statement he recalled from a previous discussion. Council Member Erickson commented on the reasoning for Sugar City having an impact area on the South side of the interchange (triangle piece). He understood why they have it in their plans. He requested that the City leave it up to the developer to pursue, if this proposed impact area expansion is being done at the request of a developer. Council Member Fullmer indicated that the one of the reasons for the proposal was to plan for orderly growth. Rexburg is growing much quicker to the north that Sugar City is growing to the south. The City limits of Rexburg are within a quarter mile of the Sugar City Impact Area. Council Member Erickson mentioned that Sugar City feels like properties north of Hwy 20 on the north interchange are Sugar City properties even though they are not in their impact area. Mayor Larsen requested to keep the map the same for the negotiations with Sugar City. Commissioner Passey mentioned that it makes sense to keep a development in one jurisdiction verses two jurisdictions. If a developer proposed to combine an area with bridges over a canal and treat it as one development; then it should be done in one jurisdiction. 6 Council Member Erickson reviewed the proposal to develop a larger development on th the north interchange than was developed on the 17 Street in Idaho Falls. He was skeptical of such a large development in Madison County with the population that exists in the area. It may be a proposal that never turns dirt. He struggled with the idea of doing this proposal, when the development may never happen. Council Member Benfield mentioned that the developer is using numbers from studies for travelers to West Yellowstone; Jackson, Wyoming, and surrounding areas. The stores will be upscale from the Idaho Falls stores. There will not be the same store in this proposed development as there are in Idaho Falls. It will be a regional draw where the people from Idaho Falls would come to Rexburg to shop. Council Member Erickson mentioned that this proposal is coming from a developer not a project financer (money manager). He recommended waiting for the Financial Manager to propose the project before the City moves forward with changes. Mayor Larsen indicated that the area would be developed in the future. It is his hope that the area will be developed into a Commercial area. It is the north entrance to Rexburg and it should be in the Comprehensive Plan for Rexburg. Mayor Larsen indicated that the meeting has been helpful. He thanked the Commissioners for their attendance to the meeting. The group discussed when they could meet again after Rexburg meets to discuss the th proposals. The City Council for Rexburg will meet on the 06 of July to discuss the st issues before a joint meeting on the 21 of July with the County and Sugar City. Adjournment ____________________________________ Shawn Larsen, Mayor ___________________________________ Blair D. Kay, City Clerk 7